Blog #7

In this weeks blog we were asked to answer this question... How do the writers use the landscapes of Los Angeles in their stories? Do they ccreate a distinct sense of the place? Have they given a good description of what one would experience in those locations?
In Kidnappers Bell, author Jim Pascoe refers to the LA River a few times and China Town. the reference to China Town in and of itself does not scream Los Angeles. You can find that reference in New York. The LA River reference I don't believe is still convioncing enough to be a distinctive sense of location. One could even feel as if was just a comparison to the LA River. Personally, I have lived here almost my whole life and I would not have been fully convinced of this area. There definately were not enough details for me to truly believe that the writer was describing Los Angeles.
In the story City of Commerce by Neal Poolack, I got a much better sense of the location in which he was talking about. Commerce alone is not enough to place you in Los Angeles. There are many cities in the United States that have the same name. But there are several details that he refereces that could only be a direct location near Los Angeles. Here is an example of a distinct reference to Los Angeles. 'I prepared for my meeting, in my mind, as I whipped the Acura down the 110, andthen onto I-5 as I moved through Downtown, crawling past merges like sheep on wheels being herded off to slaughter".(231) This is very typical of rush hour traffic in Los Angeles. Also the reference to specific freeways is another indication as to where you are. The writer also references malibu and Santa Monica. These are iconic beach cities in the Los Angeles area.
Although Neal Pollack did a good job at desribing the setting I feel that it was still a little too generic to be a very iconic view of Los Angeles. However He did a much better job than Jim Pascoe in his story and the lack of real references to Los Angeles.

Blog Post #6

In neo-noir, although there is continuity of the genre, Hirch finds it to be a perfectly natural extention of the same classic themes. Hirch writes "noirs basic narrative molds have remained notably stable". Meaning that the crime, femme fatale,detective figure are all there from the beginning. The changes now are the social issues. Because we are a more modern and contemporary society, we are using issues and putting them in the forefront of the plot. Also, the setting is vastly different than the predictable ones we had previouslyseen in classic noir. He refers to the movie Evil Touch at the end of classic noir. It is not set in the typical Los Angeles city setting. Rather it has gone into another country, Mexico, and into the desert. He is saying that by changing the setting you can make it feel even more dangerous. As Edward Dimendly points outthat now the city skyline seems to be mass produced. We see huge chain stores everywhere. They aren't that many buildings to differentiate from each other. Campareing it to old noir as being a city that was tightly organized around the center of the city.

In classic noir the detective figure is always in a big city such as Los Angeles. He tries to search for clues to unravel the mystery and usually falls for the femme fatale. Because of the shift of noir to neo-noir, the dtective figure has definately changed. He has gone from trying to solve crimes commited by someone else to things taking place in relation to ones- self. This is because of the way we are as a society. We a re using more social issues as a fore front tha nthey did back in the classic noir era.

There are three areas of neo noir that play a large role in how we see this genre of movies. They are Past, present, and future.

Past- The past is set in a large city such as Los Angeleswith the detective walking dark and lonely streets interviewing suspects and never believing t hem. Such as Humphrey Bogart playing Phillip Marlowe in the Big Sleep ( Howard Hawks 1946 ). These films were also a bit on the low budget end.

Present- The setting is now more about "time" of the distant future and distant past. The detective figure isn't really chasing the "bad guy" as much as he is trying to figure out his own identity. For instance, in the movie the Bourne Iddentity Matt Damons characterhas amnesia and he is trying to get his identity back and doesn't knowwhere to start. Also in the movie Paycheck, Micheal Jennings ( played by Ben Affleck ) had his memory wiped out and must figure out what kind of future he has engineered. He leaves clues from the future amd must interpret the past in order to discover what he used to know.

Future- The difference of future neo-noir and classic noir is that the movies are much more high techand use futuristic characteristics to drawin the audience. Movies such as Blade Runner use a plot of the detective having to exterminate four humanoid "replecants". So we are seeing this same theme of protagonist, even in a modern science fiction movie. And then there is the android "Rachel". She fits the characteristics of the modern ( high tech version ) femme fatale.

Blog #4

After both watching and reading the novel Double Indemnity I have to say that I feel that the movie version of the ending was much more appropriate for film noir. I say this because it was the typical guy fell for the femme fatale and by the end he had been shot and then dies. In the book there was this sense that the charaters were riding off into the sunset together. ( so to speak ) The movie just had more of what we are used to in terms of film noir. I belkieve that the book was in more detail. However I think that because of the times the movie version was limited in what they were and were not allowed to show on the big screen.

The appropriateness of the actor portrayals was an easy one for me. Fred MacMurray was definatley not the guy to have portrayed Walter Neff. He just seemed too nice of a guy to be that cunning of a character. At first I thought that my judgement was clouded because I remember him as the fun loving single dad that he played for years on the tv show My Three Sons. So I did take a step[ back and realized that he was just too nice of a guy. I feel that MacMurry's character was the same as in the book. But his demeanor as a person was just not in tune with book. I truly believe that this was a major miss on the casting department.
Now Barbars Stanwyck was right on the money as the femme fatale Phyllis. She has played many characters in both movies and in a tv series. However I think she was very believable in this role. I know that she played a horrible mean person in her role as in the Thornbirds. She just seemed to play these roles with such ease that she is very believable as the femme fatal that we all love to hate in these movies. This was definately right on the money as afar as getting the actress and the character right.

Blog #3

First I just have to say that I was not expecting the turn of events in this story. I had to re-read the last half of the book. I am looking forward to seeing the rest of the movie to really see the differences between the two. I am very torn as to who the detective roles are. I was absolutely convinced that it was Keyes hands down. Then upon reading the story i found that Sachetti was actually doing his own detective work as well. Sachetti was trying to clear his fathers name so he did a lot of investigative work himself. Now he may not have been quite as eloquent as Keyes he still managed to fare very well for himself. With having to choose who the actual hard-boiled detective is I have to really say that it is Keyes. He was the one who was very adament that Nirdlinger was murdered and taht it was most definately not suicide. Keyes had the inside track on the investigation from the beginning. Not just from his gut instincts, but also from being in the business and the information that he was privy to from the police. Since Keyes suspected foul play ( and was convinced of it ) he needed to find the ccomplice. Keyes knew that Phyllis could not have done this all on her own. At his point he did not suspect Huff of any involvement. That is until he was shot. That changed everything. Keyes had told Huff everything that he knew in the hospital. His only question at the time was how Huff fit into the mystery. It was then that Huff cracked and confessed everything to Keyes because of his love of Lola. He wanted to protect her.  (And might I just add holy crap I never saw that coming ) Keyes did show that he was a friend to Huff and arranged for him to get away without being prosecuted. He did have some help from the police and another collegue though. I think that showed that he really cared for Huff and did not want to see any reall harm come to him. Keyes shows so many qualities to prove that he is in deed the hard-boiled detective like how he questions Huff without really questioning him zt times. He would also give information very candidly and with such ease as if he knew in the back of his mind that there could be a chance of Huff knowing more than he thought he knew. I kind of think that Keyes also did what some cops back then might have done. Because he was pretty much a good guy until that femme fatle got him snarled into her web. May I just add that what I feel is the icing on the cake is when Huff is on the deck in his chair and finds that Phyllis is right there next to him. What poetic justice. I kind of feel like that was the law/detective part of Keyes.

Blog #2

Raymond Borde and Etienne Chaumeton state in their article "Towards a Definition of Film Noir" that "film noir is crime from within: from the point of view of the criminal." This comment relates to Double Indemnity because it is being told by Mr. Huff the insurance salesman and the criminal. As the story begins, you think that Mr. Huff is a just a slick talking insurance saleman. But then in walks the Femme Fatale... Phillis Nirdlinger. As Mr. Huff is talking about insurance Phillis begins her act. She starts to toy with Mr. Huff and as their flirting escalates to a kiss she knows she has him. Huff puts on the tough guy act and she ends up at his house. After they banter back and forth he confronts her with the scheme that she has conjured up. She tries to deny it and then leaves. The next day Phillis comes back to Huffs house and he proceeds to tell her the best way to g et rid of Mr. Nirdlinger. They decide on the railway because if an accident happens on the rails then it becomes a double indemnity pay out. Then Huff had to figure out how he was going to get Nirdlinger on a rail. The details that he had to not only think of but to also carry them out to perfection is mind blowing to me. That is wat too much work for $50,000. In the article "Primary Characteristics and Conventions of Film Noir" it provides the description of many of the scenes that we have become accustomed to in film noir. For instance when it is raining out you just know that something is going to be wrong. Who shows up at Huffs house in the pouring down rain? The femme fatale herself. Phillis Nirdlinger soaking wet with the all knowing presumption of what she is there for. And Huff gives into her seduction and they begin to plot and scheme about how they are going to knock off her husband and collect on the insurance money. There is also the part in the book where they go to the rail yard and it is late in the evening. This too is an element of noir. The darkness and shadows of the night just bring out the wickedness of the characters of Phillis and Huff. When the deed is done I find it funny that Phillis now starts to g et very irritated with Huff and wants to throw him out of the car. But she has to take him to his car instead as to keep their alibis in line. That is classic femme fatale for you. She gets what she wants and then throws the guy to curb.This is a very intriguing story so far. I cant wait to watch the film to see what the differences will be between them.

Neo-Noir 90's

After reading the article by David Ansen and Tara Weingarten, I was reminded of the movie L.A. Confidential. In this movie we are reminded of all the elements that make film noir so intiguing. First we have this amazing city, Los Angeles, as a backdrop for the story. In this fair city the police department is reveered as the best in the country. Yet underneath all the glitz and glamour of the Hollywood scene we find all the elements of a corrupt police department, prostitution, drugs, political show boating, blackmail, and bribery. Another element of this movie genre is the femme fatale played by Kim Bassinger. She wants to be good and yet falls into the wrong crowd. As typical as it is she then falls for a good guy and he tries to save her from the bad guys. I think that these movies tend to draw us into them because of the dark nature of them. As a society we want to see the good, yet we all know that there is crime out there and no one is immune to it. However at the end of the day I believe that we really do like to see the good guys come out ahead. With this movie and so many others like it, we have been drawn into the mysterious under dealings of the crime world and the good guys who work so fervently to put the bad guys away. I think that movies like these take us back to a glamorous period of time and that is why we love them.